Editorial: Don't retool; just tweak

"No" to Constitutional Amendment Question 1; "yes" to Question 2

As if Tuesday's ballot weren't contentious enough, Virginia voters will also be voting on two constitutional amendments.

The first is an attempt to bolster a property-rights law the General Assembly adopted in 2007, which protects landowners from having their land taken except under narrowly defined circumstances.

While property rights are fundamental to Virginians and we have defended them many times on these pages, we say "no" to this amendment. Constitutional amendments should not be wasted on pick-and-choose duplications of laws that already protect our citizens.

The Virginia Bill of Rights, Article I, Section 11 protects citizens from "any law whereby private property shall be taken or damaged for public uses, without just compensation, the term 'public uses' to be defined by the General Assembly."

Virginia was one of 44 states to change their laws or constitutions in reaction to the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, which held that state and local governments could seize property for economic development projects along with other traditional public uses.

The 2007 law was necessary to put the brakes on local government's wielding their condemnation powers just because they saw an opportunity to increase the tax base or "improve the cityscape." By using condemnation proceedings instead of arms-length real estate transactions, governments are often able to "take" private property as lower prices than might be paid in the open market.

We emphatically supported the statutory change because we believe eminent domain powers should be restricted to those very limited cases when public need — roads and highways, for example — might outweigh the rights of individual property owners.

But we do not believe amendments to either the U.S. or the Virginia Constitution should be lightly considered. Those charters were intended to provide a model framework for governance, not a compendium of laws. They should only be altered on rare occasions, such as when there are dramatic, sweeping social changes that necessitate adding universal protections, such as abolishing slavery, adopting an income tax, and giving women the right to vote.

Trying to outsmart a future General Assembly — proponents fear the current law might be changed — is a silly reason to push this amendment through. While we may not agree with every law passed from session to session, we trust our legislative process and believe property rights aren't going to be surrendered easily by any Virginian in Richmond.

Candidates and legislators may try to convince you this amendment is a partisan issue. Don't believe them. Using it as such only further politicizes what should be a deliberate, rarely-used process of amending a constitution that has served us well for more than two centuries.

The second proposed constitutional amendment tweaks the start time of a reconvened session after the Governor sends back a bill with vetoes or amendments. Specifically, it would allow the General Assembly to delay such a session by no more than one week.

The calendar change will allow the General Assembly to avoid conflict with religious holidays like Passover in odd years, when it meets again six weeks after the end of a 45-day session. Amending the Constitution in this limited situation is appropriate because that is where procedural matters related to the General Assembly are set forth.